Residential units in Napa, near river |
With most of
my recent posts, I’ve been attempting to convince people to attend upcoming free
public meetings, hosted by the Urban Community Partnership, at which StrongTowns
and Urban3 will talk about financially sustainable cities. The meetings will start on Tuesday evening,
January 19, in Santa Rosa. With the
meetings nearly upon us, I probably can’t do much more to convince folks to attend.
But for
anyone still on the fence, I’ll note that the meeting details, a link to the
RSVP site, and links to most of my posts about StrongTowns can be found here.
However, the
expected content of the meetings remains very much in my head.
Today, I’ll
write about a topic that may be useful to those attending the meetings, an aspect
of urbanism that seems to puzzle many.
About a year
ago, I offered the following dual definition for “urbanism”:
(1)
The study, promotion, and implementation of development concepts for settings
that are significantly denser in residential, working, and commercial
opportunities than rural or suburban locations.
(2)
The advocacy of concepts for (1) that meet beneficial goals such as improved
walkability, reduced energy consumption, stronger social networks, more stable
municipal finances, or other identified positive outcomes.
It’s not a
perfect definition. As I look at it
today, I see several changes that I’d still make.
But it’s a reasonable starting point.
And not once does it mention density.
Which may seem puzzling because many people try to equate urbanism and
density.
Rarely does
a month pass without someone saying to me “I don’t support urbanism because I
don’t like density.”
It’s a statement
that’s based on a fundamental misunderstanding of urbanist reasoning. It also leaves the speaker in an awkward
position. I’ll deal with the two in
order.
Every
urbanist probably has their own unique ranking of the beneficial goals that urbanism
tries to attain. For me, there are a big
three that fall in the following order.
The first is
environmental. Even more than municipal
finances, slowing the progress of climate change seems the defining challenge
of our time. With energy use being the
primary cause of climate change and with over half of all energy going toward transportation
and buildings, those are two seem the prime targets for conservation,
conservation that can be accomplished by more shared walls, smaller homes with
the community serving as a shared living room, and more opportunity to live
daily on foot or on bicycle, all of which are accomplished by density.
So my first goal
of urbanism isn’t density, it’s energy conservation. But it turns out that density is the best
route to that goal.
My next goal
is sustainable municipal finance, particularly on the infrastructure
maintenance issue. And the key factor in
raising sufficient property tax revenue to maintain infrastructure is the ratio
of assessed value to infrastructure. Put
more residents on the same length of street, water main, sewer, and storm drain
and that ratio is improved, so density is once again a key factor.
So my second
goal of urbanism isn’t density, it’s better municipal finances. But it turns out again that density is a good
route to that goal.
My third
goal is social. I find it satisfying to walk
out my front door knowing that groceries are a half block to my right, that the
screw needed to repair a broken railing is a block to my left, and that my
dentist and accountant can be reached by a bus that stops right in front of
me. I find it a more satisfying to live
my days encountering other people by brushing shoulders against them rather
than viewing each other through windshields.
But the only
way for the businesses to survive in walkable settings is for enough folks to
live within walkable range to sustain them.
So my third
and final goal of urbanism isn’t density, it’s a social setting that feels
right to me. And it turns out yet again that
density is a good route to that goal.
The pattern
should be obvious. Urbanism isn’t
density. Urbanism is other laudable
goals and density just happens to be the consistent path to those goals.
Being
against urbanism because one doesn’t like density is like being against financial
planning because one doesn’t like saving.
Saving is only a path to the real goals of financial planning, such as
home purchase, college expenses, and secure retirement. And density is only a path to the real goals
of slowing climate change, improving municipal finances, and making better
social settings.
And that gets
us to the awkwardness of arguing urbanism using the density argument. It leaves the speaker in the position of
arguing against combating climate change, sustainable municipal finances, and stronger
social connections. Sure, one can argue
for mandatory conversion to electrical vehicles, higher property tax rates, and
more parks, but those are three tough and probably unwinnable arguments to make.
It’s easier to
become an urbanist and to look for ways to make density more palatable.
Next time, I’ll
return to a topic I’d hoped to cover before the New Year, a plan that was
derailed when the StrongTowns visit claimed my attention. I’ll write about the urbanist organizations
that get my support and might be worthy of yours.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment